Sh. Umesh Garg, Uttar Pradesh V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 4376/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6486 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4376/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. UMESH GARG, VS. ITO, WARD 2(4) C/O MALIK & CO. (ADVOCATES) MEERUT 305/7, THAPAR NAGAR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MEERUT CITY. BHANSALI GROUND, (PAN: AFGPG0404B) MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANJAY MALIK, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR . DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.3.2014 OF THE LD. CIT(A), MEERUT RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UND ER:- 1. THAT ON THE LAST TWO DATE OF HEARING ON 18.3.201 4 AND 28.3.2014, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BECAUSE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF THE COUNSEL DUE TO DEATH OF HIS F ATHER. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APPELLAN T WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT RE- PRESENTING THE MATTER BEFORE THED LD. CIT(A). THUS THERE WAS NO WARRANT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL WITHOUT 2 AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND REPRESENTATION FOR EFFECTIVE ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS ON MERITS. 2. THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT PROPER AND EFFECTIVE ADJUDIC ATION WERE ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND UNTENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 3. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE ISSUES / GROUNDS OF APPEAL DESERVE TO BE RESTORED FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE CIT( A) AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 4. THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND MAY PLEASE BE PERMITTED T O BE TAKEN BEFORE THE BENCH. 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY WAY OF EXPARTE ORDER IN NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE AS SESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT LD. C IT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITI ES TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. CIT(A), HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER 28.3.2014 VIDE PARA NO. 2 AT PAGE NO. 4 OF HIS ORDER. THE SAID RELEVAN T PARAS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2. FOLLOWING DATES OF HEARING WERE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT:- DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING / ADJOURNED DATE REMARKS 24.12.2013 08.1.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS 3 FILED. 8.1.2014 27.1.2014 NO COMPLIANCE 10.2.2014 24.2.2014 NONE ATTENDED 27.2.2014 18.3.2014 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. 18.3.2013 28.3.2013 APPELLANT ONCE AGAIN FILED. 3. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT MORE THAN SUFF ICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO T HE APPELLANT. ON THE SEVERAL DATES FIXED FOR HEARING, THE APPELLANT FILED ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND THE CAS E WAS ADJOURNED. ON THESE DATES, EITHER NONE ATTENDED OR ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. THIS IMPLIES THA T THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. SINCE, SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITY BEING HEARD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT, NO FURTHER ADJOURNMENT CAN BE GRANTED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL EVI DENCE ON THE RECORD. 4. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL S AND EVIDENCES AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKI NG ADDITIONS. THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUNDS O F APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 6.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A N ON-SPEAKING AND EXPARTE ORDER, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE S OF LAW. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRES H, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE PARTIES AND 4 PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AL SO DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRODUCE ALL THE D OCUMENTS BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNE CESSARY ADJOURNMENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/12/2016. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 16/12/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 5